🔗 Share this article

McLaren along with F1 could do with any conclusive outcome in the title fight involving Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri being decided on the track rather than without reference to team orders as the championship finale kicks off this weekend at COTA starting Friday.

Singapore Grand Prix fallout prompts internal strain

After the Marina Bay event’s undoubtedly thorough and stressful debriefs concluded, McLaren is aiming for a reset. Norris was almost certainly fully conscious of the historical context regarding his retort toward his upset colleague at the last grand prix weekend. In a fiercely contested title fight with the Australian, that Norris invoked one of Ayrton Senna’s most famous sentiments was lost on no one but the incident that provoked his comment was of an entirely different nature from incidents characterizing the Brazilian’s great rivalries.

“If you fault me for simply attempting on the inside of a big gap then you should not be in Formula One,” stated Norris regarding his first-lap move to overtake that led to their vehicles making contact.

The remark appeared to paraphrase Senna’s “If you no longer go an available gap which is there you are no longer a racing driver” defence he provided to the racing knight after he ploughed into the French champion at Suzuka in 1990, securing him the title.

Parallel mindset yet distinct situations

While the spirit remains comparable, the phrasing is where the similarities end. Senna later admitted he had no intent of letting Prost to defeat him through the first corner while Norris attempted to execute a clean overtake in Singapore. Indeed, it was a perfectly valid effort which received no penalty even with the glancing blow he had with his team colleague during the pass. This incident stemmed from him clipping the car of Max Verstappen in front of him.

Piastri reacted furiously and, significantly, immediately declared that Norris's position gain was “unfair”; suggesting that their collision was verboten under McLaren’s rules of engagement and Norris ought to be told to give back the position he gained. The team refused, yet it demonstrated that in any cases of contention, both will promptly appeal to the team to step in on his behalf.

Squad management and impartiality under scrutiny

This comes naturally from McLaren's commendable approach to let their drivers race one another and strive to maintain strict fairness. Quite apart from tying some torturous knots when establishing rules about what defines just or unjust – which, under these auspices, now covers misfortune, strategy and on-track occurrences like in Marina Bay – there is the question regarding opinions.

Most crucially for the championship, six races left, Piastri is ahead of Norris by twenty-two points, each racer's view exists as fair and at what point their opinion may diverge with that of the McLaren pitwall. That is when the amicable relationship among them could eventually – become a little bit more Senna-Prost.

“It’s going to come to a situation where minor points count,” commented Mercedes team principal Wolff after Singapore. “Then calculations will begin and re-calculations and I guess the elbows are going to come out a bit more. That’s when it starts to get interesting.”

Viewer desires and championship implications

For the audience, in what is a two-horse race, getting interesting will likely be appreciated as an on-track confrontation rather than a data-driven decision of circumstances. Not least because in Formula One the other impression from all this isn't very inspiring.

To be fair, McLaren are making appropriate choices for their interests with successful results. They secured their tenth team championship at Marina Bay (albeit a brilliant success diminished by the controversy from their drivers' clash) and in Andrea Stella as squad leader they possess a moral and principled leader who genuinely wants to act correctly.

Sporting integrity against team management

However, with racers in a championship fight appealing to the team to decide matters appears unsightly. Their competition ought to be determined on track. Luck and destiny will play their part, yet preferable to allow them simply go at it and observe outcomes naturally, rather than the sense that every disputed moment will be analyzed intensely by the squad to ascertain whether intervention is needed and subsequently resolved afterwards behind closed doors.

The scrutiny will increase with every occurrence it is in danger of potentially making a difference that could be critical. Already, after the team made for position swaps in Italy because Norris had endured a slow pit stop and Piastri believing he was treated unfairly with the strategy call in Budapest, where Norris won, the shadow of concern about bias also emerges.

Squad viewpoint and future challenges

Nobody desires to see a title constantly disputed because it may be considered that the efforts to be fair were unequal. Questioned whether he believed the squad had managed to do right toward both racers, Piastri said that they did, but noted that it was an ever-evolving approach.

“There’s been some difficult situations and we’ve spoken about various aspects,” he stated post-race. “But ultimately it’s a learning process for the entire squad.”

Six meetings remain. The team has minimal wriggle room left for last-minute adjustments, so it may be better to just close the books and step back from the conflict.